Smart State smart fishing

Report on the Bycatch and byproduct risk assessment for the East Coast Spanish Mackerel Fishery

2

ISSN 0727-6273

QI06023

The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F) seeks to maximise the

economic potential of Queensland’s primary industries on a sustainable basis.

This publication provides information on a bycatch and byproduct risk assessment undertaken

for the East Coast Spanish Mackerel Fishery.

While every care has been taken in preparing this publication, the State of Queensland

accepts no responsibility for decisions or actions taken as a result of any data, information,

statement or advice, expressed or implied, contained in this report.

© The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2005

Copyright protects this publication.

The State of Queensland has no objection to this material being reproduced but asserts its

right to be recognised as author of its original material and the right to have its material

remain unaltered.

Inquiries should be addressed to:

Manager, DPI&F Publications

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries

GPO Box 46

Brisbane Qld 4001

Executive Summary

This report documents the outcomes of an ecological risk assessment undertaken on

bycatch and byproduct associated with the East Coast Spanish Mackerel Fishery

(ECSMF).

The ECSMF has always been considered a highly selective fishery, based on a

relatively benign fishing method. The risk assessment was designed to formalise,

quantitatively wherever possible, the risks to non-target species associated with the

fishery.

The risk assessment was valuable in that it exposed a number of invalid views about

the fishery, but also helped confirm some of the long-standing assumptions.

Participants rejected the notion that large Spanish mackerel are not retained. It was

acknowledged that the Sydney Fish Markets will not accept whole Spanish mackerel

over 10kg in response to concerns about ciguatera poisoning. However, fishers

noted it was standard practice to fillet larger fish instead of selling them whole.

Consequently, almost all large Spanish mackerel are retained. Fishers suggested

that research into whether ciguatera in Spanish mackerel is a legitimate concern for

the species should be a priority given its influence on the marketability of individual

fish.

The risk assessment process confirmed that the catch of undersize Spanish

mackerel is rare and that both commercial and recreational fishers are routinely able

to selectively target certain size classes of fish. Data provided from the DPI&F Long

Term Monitoring Program (LTMP) supported this position.

In regard to retained non-target species, fishers’ experience, as well as data from

logbooks and buyers, indicated that byproduct was rarely equivalent to more than 5%

of the total catch of Spanish mackerel.

Interestingly, participants at the workshop expressed concern about the increased

targeting of shark mackerel by operators as a result of it being a non-quota managed

species. In response, it was suggested that the logbook be expanded to capture the

catch of lesser mackerels and other pelagic species in order to monitor any changes

in targeting behaviour. It was agreed that this form of monitoring of byproduct would

be sufficient to assess any changes over time.

The risk assessment results indicated that the ECSMF poses a low risk to the

majority of the bycatch or byproduct species identified. Sharks caught incidentally,

but not retained, were the only species identified as moderate risk, in recognition that

they are vulnerable to overexploitation because of their life history traits. These

results mirror outcomes of similar risk assessments undertaken by WA and NT

fisheries agencies.

It is anticipated that the results of the risk assessment will be validated through

periodic observer trips.

Introduction

The East Coast Spanish Mackerel Fishery (ECSMF) is an important recreational and

commercial fishery targeting Scomberomorus commerson. It has been suggested that the

fishery is one of the cleanest in terms of the composition and quantity of bycatch taken.

This risk assessment is designed to provide a more formal assessment of the impacts of the

fishery on bycatch1 and byproduct2 species associated with the fishery.

The ECSMF was approved for three years as a Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) under the

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

in December 2004.

The Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) made a

number of recommendations that form conditions of the WTO approval. The

recommendations were designed to address any risks or uncertainties that were identified

during assessment of the fishery.

A number of these recommendations relate to bycatch and/or byproduct:

As part of the biennial review of the ECSMF, DPI&F to develop fishery specific

objectives linked to performance indicators and performance measures for target,

bycatch, protected species and impacts on the ecosystem. (Deadline: 31/3/2006)

DPI&F, as part of the development of performance indicators and performance

measures for the fishery, to include a mechanism to identify and respond to changes

in the composition and quantity of bycatch in the ECSMF. (Deadline: 31/3/2006)

That DPI&F, at its biennial review of the ECSMF, consider means of reducing the

capture of undersized and large Spanish mackerel including more effective size

selective gear.(Deadline: 31/3/2006)

All three recommendations are required to be implemented by early 2006. DPI&F

considered that a more formal assessment of the species potentially at risk from the fishery

was necessary to better inform discussions about size selectivity, bycatch monitoring and

performance measurement.

1 For the purposes of this risk assessment, bycatch is defined as species that are discarded from the catch or

retained for scientific purposes, and that part of the "catch" that is not landed but is killed as a result of interaction with fishing gear. This includes discards of commercially valuable species, in particular, undersize target species. 2 For the purposes of this risk assessment byproduct is defined as species that are retained because they are

commercially valuable but are not the main target species.

5

This risk assessment is based on a workshop held on 16 November 2005 with key

stakeholders. These stakeholders included:

Fishery managers

DPI&F assessment and monitoring staff

DPI&F Long Term Monitoring Program staff

Experienced commercial Spanish mackerel fishers (north and south)

Recreational fishers known to target Spanish mackerel (north and south)

Spanish mackerel researchers from JCU / CRC Reef.

The list of participants can be found in Appendix 1.

The objectives of the workshop were to:

Determine the level of risk to the ecological sustainability of bycatch and byproduct

associated with the ECSMF.

Assess the need for monitoring of bycatch or byproduct and what form this may take.

Discuss potential ways in which the DEH recommendation relating to more size

selective gear may be met.

Develop objectives, performance indicators and performance measures related to

bycatch and byproduct.

Because of the limited time available to complete the risk assessment in the workshop, the

development of performance measures was not discussed at the workshop. However, the

performance measures set out in this document have been developed by DPI&F and

provided to participants and the Reef Management Advisory Committee’s (MAC) Scientific

Advisory Group (SAG) for comments. DPI&F will determine the most appropriate framework

to implement the performance measurement system.

6

Process

Figure 1

Figure 1 provides an overview of the process that was followed in the workshop, highlighting

the importance of justifying risks, and the linkage with development of performance

measures. The risk analysis tool used in this process is based upon the AS/NZ Standard,

but adapted for use within the fisheries context (Fletcher et al, 2002). It works by assigning

a level of consequence (from negligible to catastrophic) and the likelihood of this

consequence occurring (from remote to likely) for each issue/species. The overall level of

risk assigned to each species is based on the group’s assessment of the perceived

consequence multiplied by the perceived likelihood. Further information on the process can

be found in Fletcher et al, 2002.

Scope

There was significant discussion at the beginning and throughout the workshop in regard to

the scope of the assessment. This section provides a synthesis of these discussions. It

highlights some of the inherent characteristics of the Spanish mackerel fishery and other line

Identify scope

Identify species/issues

(component tree)

Assess consequence Assess likelihood

Calculate risk value

(consequence x

likelihood)

Calculate risk ranking

Justify ranking in context

of current management

arrangements

Develop objectives,

performance indicators

and performance

objectives

7

fisheries that were identified to ensure a clear scope for the assessment. The discussion

was extremely valuable as it ensured all participants were aware of the context when

assessing risk.

Regional differences

The ECSMF exhibits distinct regional differences. The majority of the catch in the northern

section (i.e., north of Gladstone) has historically been taken by the commercial sector, while

the catch in the south is dominated by the recreational sector. In addition, Spanish mackerel

in the north are often associated with coral reefs, while in the south they are often found in

open water or associated more often with rocky reefs. Initial discussions about bycatch and

byproduct indicated that because of the different habitat characteristics between the north

and the south, bycatch and byproduct species would also differ. It was determined that,

depending on the species of interest, it may be appropriate to assess the level of risk to

species separately for each region.

Gear and bait differences

The gear used to target Spanish mackerel is known to vary regionally, both between and

within sectors.

In north Queensland commercial fishers tend to troll with 200ft of wire on a 12-14 inch reel,

sometimes on a paravane/downrigger. Depending on the behaviour of the fish, operators

may change to lighter gear, using 50lb monofilament line on rod and reel. This is often done

to encourage fish to the surface if trolling is unsuccessful. Bait ranges from gar to pilchards.

Operators in the north tend to use lures (e.g., spoons) more than their southern

counterparts.

Commercial operators in the north who fish predominantly for coral reef finfish often float a

single pilchard on gang hooks in order to potentially catch a Spanish mackerel while they

are also bottom fishing for demersal coral reef fish.

Commercial operators in the south tend to use lighter gear, trolling with 50lb monofilament

line on rod and reel. Bait also differs from the north, with southern fishers often collecting

live bait of slimy mackerel, yellowtail scad and bonito.

Recreational fishers use a variety of gears, but predominantly use around 30lb monofilament

or braided line on rod and reel. The type of bait used varies significantly, from lures to live

and dead baits.

It was acknowledged that gear and bait differences apparent between regions may influence

the risk values.

Overlap in line fisheries

The workshop recognised that significant overlap exists between a number of Queensland

line fisheries, including the ECSMF, the Coral Reef Finfish Fishery, the Rocky Reef Fishery

and the Deepwater Finfish Fishery. Given that the type of gear permitted is similar in the

fisheries and the areas of operation also overlap, participants expected that it may be

8

difficult to distinguish which fishery bycatch or byproduct species were taken in. In addition,

many operators are endorsed to operate in a number of these fisheries, further confounding

whether the catch is taken as a target species in one fishery or byproduct in another.

Overall assessment of scope

Based on the points raised above, it was identified that the scope of the assessment should:

Be limited to the Spanish mackerel fishery on the east coast only;

Only consider the impacts of line fishing, which is the only permitted method for

targeting Spanish mackerel (i.e., exclude Spanish mackerel caught incidentally by

net);

Where appropriate, separate issues into regions (north; south) or sectors

(commercial; recreational);

Not include bait collection, which was considered a separate fishery and would not

be assessed as part of the Spanish mackerel fishery;

Not consider that floating a pilchard while actively fishing for coral reef finfish is

“targeting” Spanish mackerel. It was felt that this activity may be more accurately

described as an incidental capture of Spanish mackerel while fishing in the Coral

Reef Finfish Fishery. It was also established that the aim of the workshop was to

assess bycatch and byproduct taken when actively targeting Spanish mackerel,

rather than confound the issue by considering overlapping fisheries.

Issue identification (component trees)

Issue identification is an important step in any risk assessment process. The purpose of

developing component trees is to assist the process of issue identification by moving

through each of the ecological components of ESD in a comprehensive and structured

manner, maximising consistency and minimising the chances of missing issues.

Participants added issues not covered in the generic component trees and deleted issues

that weren’t considered relevant to the fishery.

A number of issues and species were discussed at this stage and subsequently not added

to the component tree.

No-take species prescribed under the Fisheries (Coral Reef Finfish) Management Plan 2003

were not included in the component trees. It was established that the no-take fish species

(barramundi cod, potato cod, Queensland groper, paddletail, red bass and hump-headed

Maori wrasse) are associated with the reef proper, rather than the reef edge where Spanish

mackerel fishing tends to occur and catch of these species wasn’t known to occur.

Discarding fish in order to high-grade was not considered a relevant issue. In some quota

managed fisheries high-grading can be a significant issue. However, Spanish mackerel

commercial fishers are highly effective at targeting the preferred size classes that fetch the

best prices. These preferred size classes aren’t generally larger fish (i.e., >10kg).

Recreational fishers have recently been further constrained by a reduced in-possession limit

from ten to three fish. However, the participants indicated that high-grading does not occur

in the recreational sector. The large size of the fish targeted and captured means most

9

anglers are satisfied with their catch and the amount of seafood obtained for personal

consumption.

The discard of large Spanish mackerel wasn’t considered a relevant issue and was

subsequently not included in the non-retained species component tree. In the past it has

been suggested that commercial fishers discard fish over 10kg because of concerns about

ciguatera poisoning. Commercial fishers at the workshop indicated that the association of

the species with ciguatera toxins has not been formally established and that it doesn’t

generally influence their fishing behaviour. The Sydney Fish Markets will not sell whole

Spanish mackerel over 10kg. Queensland commercial fishers, therefore, tend to fillet the

larger individual fish and sell the product. This is supported by data collected through the

DPI&F Long Term Monitoring Program (Appendix 6), which shows the size class distribution

of the commercial catch. It demonstrates that fish over the 10kg mark are retained. The

size distribution of retained commercial catch follows a smooth curve, rather than a severe

drop off at the 10kg size, which would be expected if larger fish were discarded.

Commercial fishers indicated that there was a priority need to review previous research on

whether or not Spanish mackerel carry ciguatera toxins and whether it relates only to certain

areas (such as Platypus Bay).

The catch of undersize snapper (Pagrus auratus) was not included in the non-retained

component tree as participants felt the catch of snapper was restricted to larger individuals

coming up from depth to attack the trolled bait. No participants had encountered undersize

snapper while targeting Spanish mackerel.

The component trees include a summary of the risks rankings that were assigned to each

component, through different colour codes. Justifications for the risk rankings follow after a

description of the risk assessment process.

10

Blue boxes indicate negligible risk

Yellow boxes indicate low risk

Green boxes indicate moderate risk

Orange boxes indicate high risk

Red boxes indicate extreme risk

RETAINED SPECIES

Primary Species Byproduct Species

Spanish mackerel Shark mackerel

Cobia

Trevally

Barracuda

Mackerel tuna

Spotted mackerel

School mackerel

North

South

Snapper

South

11

NON RETAINED

SPECIES

Capture Direct Interaction but No Capture

Listed Species Non Listed Species Whales

Seabirds Undersize Spanish mackerel

Mackerel tuna (north)

Trevally

Sharks

Barracuda

Gannets

Dolphin

Pilot whale

Chinaman fish

Boobies

Northern bluefin tuna

Yellowfin tuna

Marlin

Wahoo

Undersize spotted mackerel

Undersize school mackerel

Coral reef finfish by operators with no RQ

Undersize or oversize coral reef finfish

Sharks

Australian leaping bonito

Remora

12

Risk assessment

The overall level of risk assigned to each species is based on the group’s assessment of the

perceived consequence multiplied by the perceived likelihood. A realistic estimate was

made by the group, based upon the combined judgment of the participants, who have

significant expertise or experience in the fishery.

When considering the level of consequence or likelihood, participants made an assessment

in context of what existing control measures and management arrangements are already in

place. When assessing consequence, participants noted the consequence on a population

or region, not an individual fish. The consequence and likelihood tables can be found in

Appendix 2. The tables have been amended slightly from Fletcher et al, 2002, to better suit

the ECSMF and focus more closely on byproduct and bycatch issues.

A risk ranking was given, based on the risk value (see Table 5 and 6 in Appendix 2). The

risk ranking dictated the amount of justification required and also the extent of management

likely to be needed to address the risk.

Justification of the risk values and ratings are provided below. A summary table can also be

found in Appendix 3.

Background information and data that was used to make an assessment has been included

in Appendix 4 – 6.

Retained species

Shark mackerel (Grammatorcynus bicarinatus) – north

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 4

Shark or salmon mackerel currently forms the main byproduct species in the northern part of

the fishery. The species is incidentally captured when fishers troll too close to the reef.

Grant (1997) states that shark mackerel are commonly seen on the Great Barrier Reef

schooling close to coral rims where rivulets that drain the lagoons into deeper waters entice

bait fish to gather.

They are caught incidentally while actively targeting Spanish mackerel, but are also

occasionally targeted in their own right.

Because no quota is deducted for retaining shark mackerel it has become a more popular

species to retain and helps supplement income from quota species alone. For those

operators that did not receive an SM fishery symbol in 2004, it may become an increasingly

important target species. Participants also noted that shark mackerel are now starting to be

targeted by active Spanish mackerel fishers at the end of the season. Notwithstanding

these comments, participants reiterated that shark mackerel are only currently caught on a

low percentage of Spanish mackerel fishing days. CFISH data (Appendix 4) indicates that

approximately 13 tonne of shark mackerel were caught on the same day as Spanish

13

mackerel in 2004. This equates to around 30% of the total Queensland catch of shark

mackerel in 2004.

It was noted that a significant market for the species has not yet been established, but it was

thought that it was highly likely to occur.

A buyer and commercial fisher based in Townsville has provided byproduct weight statistics

relating to the retained catches (in weight) of several Townsville-based Spanish mackerel

fishers (Appendix 7). The catch is also described as a percentage of the total catch taken

when targeting Spanish mackerel. These data help to demonstrate the likelihood values

that were assigned, where logbook data on byproduct is difficult to obtain. His data indicate

that the amount of shark mackerel retained by commercial fishers is consistently less than

20kg and as a proportion of the total catch when targeting Spanish mackerel is between 0

and 4.2%.

Proposed Management Actions:

With anticipated increases in the catch of shark mackerel, the participants agreed it was

important that commercial fishers should be recording catches of other mackerel species in

the logbook. Workshop participants agreed that a separate “pelagic” logbook should be

developed in order to gain more accurate information and be able to detect shifts in targeting

and marketability of different species. Note: This proposed management action applies to

all retained pelagic species in this document (i.e., other mackerel species, cobia, mackerel

tuna, barracuda, trevally).

Shark mackerel (Grammatorcynus bicarinatus) – south

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 2.4

Shark mackerel are generally not caught south of Sandy Cape. Most of the southern catch

is restricted to the Capricorn-Bunker Group. However, targeting behaviour in the area

reflects the same trends evident in the north of the fishery and there is an increasing

likelihood of shark mackerel being retained more often with a shift in marketability.

Commercial fishers estimated that the current catch in the central Queensland region may

be equivalent to 0.5% of the Spanish mackerel catch, indicating a similar catch rate to the

north.

The species was assessed separately for the north and the south because of its limited

distribution and the associated difference in risk values.

Cobia (black kingfish) (Rachycentron canadus)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 2.4

Cobia are taken incidentally in small quantities in the Spanish mackerel fishery. Participants

suggested they made up less than 5% of the catch. Buyer information (Appendix 7)

supports this, suggesting that cobia catch represents less than 3% of the total catch retained

14

when targeting Spanish mackerel. Participants indicated that cobia tend to be caught less

often in the northern part of the fishery.

CFISH data (Appendix 4) shows that in 2004 a total of 2.5 tonnes of cobia were taken by

operators who landed Spanish mackerel on the same days. The catch makes up less than

15% of the total Queensland catch of the species in 2004. The workshop agreed that cobia

tend to be taken in larger numbers in the rocky reef fishery and the gulf inshore net fishery.

Cobia distribution extends across the entire State and worldwide. It was acknowledged that

cobia aggregate to spawn in Moreton Bay and therefore may be more vulnerable. Grant

(1997) supports this and suggests that some of the hot-spots are found close to Brisbane.

Trevally (Caranx and Carangoides spp)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 1.2

Trevally are occasionally retained when incidentally caught, depending on the area caught

and the marketability of the product at the time. They tend to be taken more frequently in

the south compared to the north, but generally never make up more than 5% of the catch

(by weight) while targeting Spanish mackerel. This is supported by buyer information

(Appendix 7), which shows of the 10 tonnes of Spanish mackerel landed on 10 separate

dates only 7 kg of trevally was retained.

CFISH data (Appendix 4) shows catches of trevally species of less than 20 tonnes on the

same day as Spanish mackerel is caught. This represents less than 15% of the total

Queensland catch of trevally species in 2004.

In terms of the risks to the species, the participants agreed that trevally are incredibly

abundant, fast growing fish, and at low risk from this fishery.

Barracuda (Sphyraena spp)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 0.9

Commercial operators indicated that barracuda are sometimes captured incidentally, a

position supported by Grant (1985), who suggests they are known to be caught while trolling

for mackerel. Only a certain amount is kept and sold as “mixed reef”, with the rest released.

Risks associated with non-retained barracuda are dealt with in the section on non-retained

species.

CFISH data suggests that only a small amount of barracuda is retained, with a total of only

40 kg recorded on the same day as Spanish mackerel was caught in 2004. Significantly

more barracuda is taken in other fisheries, with the ECSMF contributing less than 1% to the

total Queensland catch in 2004.

Barracuda is extensively distributed and relatively resilient to exploitation as a result of its

fast growth and the fact the species does not generally aggregate. Therefore the

consequence rating was quite low, while the likelihood was high.

15

Mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis) – south

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 2.4

Participants suggested that mackerel tuna are generally only caught in the southern section

of the fishery. There is some demand for mackerel tuna fillets in the south of the State, so a

small amount is sometimes retained for sale if incidentally caught while targeting Spanish

mackerel. However, because of the time taken to land mackerel tuna, fishers often move

location to avoid catching them after they are encountered.

CFISH data shows that in 2004, only 890 kg of mackerel tuna was retained on the same day

that Spanish mackerel was caught (Appendix 4). This represents approximately 10% of the

total Queensland catch. CFISH data supports participants’ suggestion that the majority of

the catch is taken in the net fishery.

Mackerel tuna are not generally retained in the north of the fishery. The risks associated

with the released component are dealt with in the non-retained section.

Spotted mackerel (Scomberomorus munroi) – north

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 1.8

Spotted mackerel are very occasionally caught in the northern section of the fishery,

resulting in a lower risk value than spotted mackerel in the south. Minimal overlap between

Spanish mackerel and spotted mackerel schools is thought to occur in the north. The use of

larger baits also results in a reduced incidental catch of spotted mackerel.

CFISH data (Appendix 4) shows that in 2004, 18 tonnes of spotted mackerel were taken on

the same day as Spanish mackerel. Catch on the same day as Spanish mackerel

contributes approximately 17% to the total Queensland catch of spotted mackerel.

It was recognised that spotted mackerel are relatively resilient in terms of their growth rates,

but may be at risk of impact because of their schooling characteristics.

Spotted mackerel (Scomberomorus munroi) – south

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 2.4

Spotted mackerel are frequently caught while targeting Spanish mackerel in the south.

However, the incidental catch in the Spanish mackerel fishery is minor compared to the

targeted spotted mackerel catches. As stated above, catch of spotted mackerel recorded on

the same day as Spanish mackerel is caught indicates that the catch in the fishery

contributes less than 20% of the overall east coast catch. It should be noted that there is

likely to be significant overlap in fisheries, with Spanish mackerel fishers also likely to have

spotted mackerel quota, particularly in the southern part of the state. It’s unlikely that all of

the product caught on the same day as Spanish mackerel was taken incidentally while

targeting Spanish mackerel. It’s more likely that operators permitted to take both species

target Spanish mackerel for part of the day and spotted mackerel for another part.

16

When assigning risk, participants took into account the fact spotted mackerel are currently

managed separately under a total allowable catch and is a line-only species.

School mackerel (Scomberomorus queenslandicus)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 2.4

Participants indicated that large school mackerel tend to be found in close association with

Spanish mackerel. Workshop participants suggested that based on their combined

experiences there is more overlap with school mackerel compared to spotted mackerel.

CFISH data shows that approximately 5 tonnes of school mackerel is taken on the same day

that Spanish mackerel is caught. This represents less than 4% of the total Queensland

catch in 2004. This is in contrast to the suggestion from participants that the catch of school

mackerel is greater than spotted. However, it is likely that the estimated catch of spotted

mackerel when targeting Spanish mackerel is confounded by an overlap in the two line

fisheries. In addition, the data is limited in that information on which species is being

targeted is not recorded in the logbook. Notwithstanding this, the catch of either species in

the Spanish mackerel fishery is small compared to the catch in other fisheries.

School mackerel are relatively resilient, exhibiting high growth rates. However, because of

their schooling behaviour the species may make them more vulnerable than other species.

Snapper (Pagrus auratus)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 3

The likelihood of snapper being caught incidentally when targeting Spanish mackerel was

considered low. Catches are generally restricted to the southern part of the State (i.e., south

of The Swains (off Rockhampton)), mirroring the natural distribution of snapper.

Participants indicated that it was almost always larger snapper rising from depth to attack a

trolled bait that were caught. Incidental catch of snapper in the Spanish mackerel fishery

was considered to be very minor compared to the total take of snapper across fisheries,

particularly by recreational anglers that target them specifically. CFISH data supported this

comment, showing that the commercial catch of snapper on the same day as Spanish

mackerel was minor (11 tonnes in 2004) and represented less than 8% of the total catch of

snapper across Queensland in 2004.

It was acknowledged that the potential consequences on the species may be high given the

slow growth and long life span of the species, its current overfished status, limited

distribution in Queensland and the high catchability of snapper on discrete rocky reefs.

Coral reef finfish species in general

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 3

17

Participants indicated that coral reef finfish species managed under the Fisheries (Coral

Reef Finfish) Management Plan 2003 were sometimes caught incidentally while targeting

Spanish mackerel.

However, in terms of consequence ratings, it was acknowledged that all catch was recorded

against fishers’ quota and was consequently explicitly managed via quotas for coral trout,

red throat emperor and other coral reef finfish. In addition, those operators that do not hold

an RQ or SM symbol and are restricted to the recreational in possession limit.

Non retained species

The consequence categories used for non-retained species excluded assessment of the

contribution of the catch in the ECSMF to the overall catch of the species. It quickly became

apparent during the workshop that the catch of these species was consistently negligible. In

addition, it was hard to estimate the overall catch of non-retained species in all fisheries

given bycatch figures are not collected on most of the finfish species. Instead, the

consequence ratings focussed on the distribution of the species and its susceptibility to

overexploitation or impacts due to its life history characteristics. Of particular focus was the

species post release survival characteristics. It was acknowledged that the fishing method

used to target Spanish mackerel means fishers are constantly in attendance of their lines,

allowing for quick release of any unwanted species.

Not listed

Undersize Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson)

Risking ranking: Low

Risk value: 4

Participants indicated that the likelihood of catching undersize Spanish mackerel was low.

The commercial fishing representative from the north estimated that around 1 in 100

Spanish mackerel caught were under the legal minimum size in the northern section of the

fishery, while the representative from the south estimated it may be 5 out of every 100

Spanish mackerel in the southern section.

The low likelihood of capture is a result of a number of factors including:

Undersize Spanish mackerel are usually found in inshore areas. In contrast, most

commercial fishers operate in areas further offshore.

The size of bait used by commercial fishers generally precludes the catch of small

Spanish mackerel. This is supported by Tobin and Mapleston (2003), who showed

that larger baits tend to catch larger Spanish mackerel.

Smaller Spanish mackerel don’t tend to aggregate with larger Spanish mackerel as

they tend to be cannibalised.

Commercial fishers almost always move on if they encounter a school of undersize

Spanish mackerel. It is economically inefficient to continue expending time, fuel and

bait fishing for product that can’t be retained. In addition, it is common anecdote that

commercial fishers will actively move away from schools of small though legal sized

mackerel due to poor economic returns per captured fish (Tobin and Mapleston,

2003).

18

DPI&F Long Term Monitoring Program data indicates that the proportion of smaller fish

caught is small across both the commercial and recreational sectors (see Appendix 6). If

the catch of smaller fish was common, the data would show more of a knife-edge selection

at the minimum size limit, rather than the declining smooth curve down to smaller sizes

which is apparent. The data further demonstrates the targeted nature of the fishery and the

ability of both sectors to select for the preferred size classes. Notwithstanding this, the

recreational sector is slightly less selective, with marginally higher catches in the smaller

size classes. It is also clear that they target the larger trophy fish. These characteristics of

the recreational sector were reinforced by Tobin and Mapleston (2003).

The assertion that very few undersize Spanish mackerel are caught is also supported by

reports from other jurisdictions where similar gear is used, namely in the Northern Territory

(Grady, 2002) and Western Australia (Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2004).

Based on their experiences, commercial and recreational fishers at the workshop suggested

that the survival rate of undersize Spanish mackerel that are released was fairly good and

estimated mortality to be only around 10% of those released. The consequence rating was

therefore assessed as low.

Mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis) – north

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 4

Grant (1985) supports the notion that mackerel tuna are considered almost a nuisance fish

on Spanish mackerel grounds. Participants suggested that the majority of mackerel tuna

are released in the northern section of the fishery. The likelihood of catching mackerel tuna

however is minimised in some respects, given Spanish mackerel fishers often move away

from the area to avoid capturing them. Operators suggested they try and land them as

quickly as possible to avoid wasting any further time on a significantly lower value species

compared to Spanish mackerel.

Because heavy line is used, the fish is not played for a long period of time. Consequently,

the post release survival of mackerel tuna is likely to be relatively high. It was noted that for

recreational fishers who may play the fish for a longer time, that the mortality may be higher.

Also influencing the consequence rating is the fact the species is thought to be extremely

resilient due to its fast population doubling time (<15 months).

Trevally (Caranx and Carangoides spp)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 2.5

Trevally are occasionally retained when incidentally caught, depending on the area caught

and the marketability of the product at the time. The rest of the time they are released.

Trevally are extensively distributed and are highly resilient due to their fast growth. It was

also acknowledged that the species is thought to have relatively high survival rates following

release. These factors resulted in a low consequence rating.

19

Barracuda (Sphyraena spp)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 1.5

Barracuda is occasionally captured incidentally when targeting Spanish mackerel, but is

released for a number of reasons, including the poor odour of the flesh, lack of marketability

and the risks associated with bringing such an aggressive species on deck.

Barracuda is extensively distributed and is relatively resilient to exploitation as a result of its

fast growth and the fact the species does not generally aggregate. This resulted in a low

consequence rating.

Northern blue fin tuna (Longtail tuna) (Thunnus tonggol)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 4

Participants agreed that the incidental capture of northern bluefin tuna was expected to

occur, but only infrequently.

The northern bluefin tuna is broadly distributed throughout tropical and subtropical parts of

the Pacific Ocean. Grant (1997) suggests that highly localised aggregations build up in and

around Moreton Bay in April.

The post release survival of northern bluefin tuna is, like many other pelagic fish, dependant

on the amount of time they are played. Participants agreed that they become easily tired

and stressed if not brought to the boat quickly, which increases the likelihood that they will

die following release. These factors contributed to the group’s assessment that the species

has some life history characteristics that may make it more vulnerable to impacts. However,

the overall risk rating was still low because of the low incidence of catch of the species.

Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 4

It was acknowledged by participants that yellowfin tuna are taken when targeting Spanish

mackerel, though only infrequently. From the perspective of recreational anglers, it was

thought fishers may catch between one and two yellowfin tuna per season.

As with other pelagics, the post release survival depends on length of time to land and

handling, and can sometimes be poor.

Marlin (Makaira spp) – commercial

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 4.5

Marlin are caught only very rarely by commercial fishers when targeting Spanish mackerel.

Commercial fishers are not permitted to retain marlin, so are released.

20

Commercial operators considered that marlin were a relatively hardy species and

consequently post release survival was fairly high. This is supported by studies in the US

that found white marlin caught and released had a survival rate between 65% and 100%,

depending on the type of hook used3.

Participants acknowledged however that the species may be vulnerable to impacts of fishing

as a result of being long-lived. In addition, black marlin have a single spawning ground off

Lizard Island where they are targeted by marlin operators.

Marlin (Makaira spp) – recreational

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 6

Participants acknowledged that recreational fishers are likely to catch marlin more often than

commercial fishers, who tend to be more targeted fishers. It was noted that recreational

fishers sometimes catch smaller marlin off the south coast of Queensland (e.g., around

Noosa and off Moreton Island). This consequently resulted in a slightly higher likelihood

value compared to the commercial catch. The consequence value remained the same as

the commercial component.

Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 3

Participants indicated that the incidental catch of wahoo was dependant on the location and

the time of year. Wahoo are more often captured incidentally around the Tweed, Point

Lookout and Flat Rock areas in winter. It was suggested that the likelihood of capture by

commercial fishers was 1 to 2 fish for every thousand Spanish mackerel taken. It was

considered possible that this catch rate may be slightly higher in areas off the south coast.

CFISH data show that only a small amount of wahoo (less than 1 tonne) was retained by

Spanish mackerel fishers in 2004 (Appendix 4)

Similar to some of the other pelagic species incidentally captured, wahoo are usually solitary

animals that are relatively resilient due to their fast population doubling time. Consequently,

the consequence rating for the species was low.

Undersize school mackerel (Scomberomorus queenslandicus) and spotted

mackerel (Scomberomorus munroi) – commercial

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 3

Participants noted that the incidental capture of undersize school and spotted mackerel was

unlikely, but was known to happen occasionally. The recreational catch of the two species

was considered higher and was dealt with separately.

3 See the Released Fish Survival fact sheet on best practices for releasing billfish: http://www.info-

fish.net/releasefish/files/5/Releasing%20Billfish.pdf

21

It was acknowledged that school and spotted mackerel have some characteristics that make

them more vulnerable, such as schooling behaviour and sometimes poor survival following

release. However, the species was considered fairly resilient due to its fast growth.

Undersize school mackerel (Scomberomorus queenslandicus)and spotted

mackerel (Scomberomorus munroi) – recreational

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 4

The same consequence level was assigned to undersize school and spotted mackerel as

was done for the commercial sector. The likelihood of capture by recreational fishers

however was thought to be higher than the commercial. Consequently, the overall risk value

was higher.

Coral reef finfish species taken by operators with no RQ symbol

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 6

Data from the DPI&F licensing system indicates that of the 298 fishers with an SM symbol,

187 are also endorsed with an RQ symbol4. Participants agreed that it is likely that some

fishers would have to release coral reef finfish because they don’t possess a valid fishery

symbol. However, because the majority of active Spanish mackerel fishers are also

permitted to retain coral reef finfish species, it was thought to be infrequent.

The consequence rating for coral reef finfish species was thought to be moderate, given

they are known to aggregate to spawn, often have a small home range, and may have poor

post release survival depending on the depth they are caught at. They also tend to be long-

lived, slow growing, and hermaphroditic. The consequence rating also took into account the

quota system that is in place for coral reef fin fish and the need to maintain its integrity. The

consequence rating was reduced in some part by the wide distribution of most coral reef

finfish.

Undersize or oversize coral reef finfish species

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 6

Participants agreed that occasionally while targeting Spanish mackerel (i.e., trolling) some

coral reef finfish that were undersize or oversize were caught. Participants referred

specifically to the incidental capture of oversized blue spot trout.

The consequence rating mirrored that of coral reef finfish in general, in acknowledgement of

the ecological characteristics of reef fish and the quota system in place.

Sharks (not including grey nurse)

Risk ranking: Low-moderate

Risk value: 8

4 Licensing information current as at December 2005.

22

Participants noted that the capture of sharks was a relatively infrequent occurrence. Sharks

are often known to take a fish that is in the process of being landed, but are only rarely

hooked. Sharks occasionally encountered included reef sharks, whalers, white tip sharks

and bronze whalers. As an indicator of the number incidentally captured, participants noted

that more wahoo are captured than sharks. Participants indicated that they generally

released any shark species captured. However, it was considered possible that some

Spanish mackerel fishers may occasionally retain some of the smaller shark species (i.e.

reef sharks less than 4 ft) for sale.

The slow growth of most shark species and their limited reproductive capacity makes them

particularly susceptible to overexploitation. Internationally there has been concern

expressed for the survival of a range of shark species and the impacts different fisheries are

having on their sustainability. Participants agreed that the ecological characteristics of

sharks in general warranted a moderate risk to the species. This was balanced however by

the wide distribution of most of the species referred to and the prolific numbers of some

species, such as reef sharks.

It was specifically mentioned that the incidental capture of grey nurse sharks has not been

known to occur in the commercial fishery, mostly because the fishery operates mainly in the

north of the state and also because commercial and recreational fishers surface troll for

mackerel, while grey nurse shark tend to sit on the bottom of sandy gutters.

Australian leaping bonito (Cybiosarda elegans)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 3

Only on very rare occasions are bonito incidentally captured while targeting Spanish

mackerel.

Bonito are known to have a wide distribution, and are fast growing and resilient fish. The

consequence rating was therefore very low.

Remora (Remora remora)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 3

Very occasionally remora are brought aboard attached to other target and non-target

species.

Remora have a cosmopolitan distribution throughout tropical and subtropical waters and are

usually reef-associated. No information could be obtained on their resilience or other

ecological characteristics.

Listed species

It should be acknowledged that Spanish mackerel fishers are required to fill in a Species of

Conservation Interest (SOCI) logbook to record any interactions with protected species.

Since the introduction of the logbook in late 2003, no interactions have been recorded by

Spanish mackerel fishers, demonstrating the low level of interaction occurring in the fishery.

23

Seabirds - boobies and gannets (Family Sulidae)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 3

Participants noted that the likelihood of capturing seabirds while targeting Spanish mackerel

was low but is known to have occurred. The species involved are usually restricted to

boobies and gannets. Species that have attracted concern in other jurisdictions such as

albatross are not generally caught in the Spanish mackerel fishery because of their limited

natural distribution. Participants also agreed that because they are constantly in attendance

of fishing gear, they are often able to pull the line away should they see a bird diving for the

bait. This essentially avoids any chance of hooking a bird or having one become entangled

in the line.

Boobies and gannets are known to have a relatively broad distribution. Neither species of

seabird are currently listed as threatened under Commonwealth legislation. However, they

are protected as Listed Marine Species and Listed Migratory Species under the EPBC Act.

In terms of the consequence of the fishery, participants agreed that only a few individuals

are impacted but there is likely to be only minimal impact on the populations of the species.

Participants noted that birds are often entangled in line or hooked in the foot, rather than

hooked in the mouth. This is supported by anecdotal evidence from seabird rescue groups

(Waterbird Rescue Queensland and DPI&F, 2005). These characteristics make it relatively

easy to release the bird unharmed. Fishers at the workshop agreed that it was quite simple

to keep the bird calm on the deck of the boat and remove the hook if necessary. The

participants noted that the hook and line were almost always completely removed before the

bird was released. No fishers had encountered a seabird being hooked in the mouth while

targeting Spanish mackerel. In addition, it was noted that because of the nature of the

fishery, fishers are in attendance of their lines at all times, so can respond quickly to any

hooking or entanglement. Given these factors, the participants agreed that the survival rate

of seabirds that were hooked was likely to be quite high.

It should be noted that DPI&F have recently distributed a DVD to both commercial and

recreational fishers teaching them how to minimise interactions with seabirds and handle

them should an interaction occur.

Dolphins

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 3

One fisher at the workshop noted he has on a single occasion hooked a juvenile dolphin.

He stated however that it was likely a result of being close inshore in an area where he felt a

number of dolphins had become tame and were used to feeding around humans. It was

acknowledged by other participants that this was likely a very localised and rare event. The

dolphin referred to was released unharmed.

In terms of the consequence rating, such an interaction is likely to have no impact on the

stock. Nor is it likely to be socially unacceptable because it is released unharmed.

24

Pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 2

Similar to the dolphin capture, one operator reported a pilot whale becoming entangled in

line. It was noted that the interaction was the only one within 20 years of fishing experience,

and was thought to be a result of curiosity by the whale. The whale broke free of the line

and swam away unharmed. It was determined that the likelihood of similar encounters

occurring in the Spanish mackerel fishery was extremely low.

In terms of the consequence rating, such an interaction is likely to have no impact on the

whale population. Nor is it likely to be socially unacceptable because it is released

unharmed.

Chinaman fish (Symphorus nematophorus)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 3

While chinaman fish is not a listed species under Commonwealth legislation, it is a regulated

species under Queensland fisheries legislation, making it a no-take species. Consequently,

it was determined that it should be treated in a similar fashion as listed species.

Participants at the workshop indicated that chinaman fish was the only no-take species that

was incidentally captured while targeting Spanish mackerel. Fishers indicated that the

chance of a chinaman fish being caught was unlikely, but known to happen occasionally.

The consequence rating assigned to chinaman fish reflected the fact that it is a slow

growing, late maturing and long lived species, and may be vulnerable to impacts from

fishing.

Interaction but no direct capture

Whales (multiple species)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 4.5

A number of fishers noted that whales have occasionally bumped into their boats whilst

fishing for Spanish mackerel. It was acknowledged that this issue related more to boating in

general rather than a specific impact of the Spanish mackerel fishery.

The likelihood of recreational or commercial fishers in boats colliding with whales, or whales

colliding with boats, is increasing as a result of the increasing abundance of whales in

Queensland waters.

It should be noted that DPI&F recently delivered a comprehensive education program to

commercial and recreational fishers regarding ways of minimising interactions with protected

species, including whales.

25

Sharks (multiple species, but not including grey nurse shark)

Risk ranking: Low

Risk value: 7.5

As noted in the non-retained section, sharks are often known to take a fish that is in the

process of being landed. The likelihood rating reflects the fact that both recreational and

commercial fishers acknowledged routinely having sharks take their catch before it can be

brought to the boat.

The distribution of the shark species of concern is relatively broad. However, as stated

earlier, some of the ecological characteristics exhibited by sharks make them susceptible to

overexploitation. The overall consequence rating recognises these characteristics, but takes

into consideration their broad distribution.

It is important to note that participants acknowledged that a shark taking a fish is likely to

have a negligible impact on shark populations.

Preliminary performance measurement

The development of fishery specific objectives, performance indicators and performance

measures is becoming increasingly important in fisheries management. Such a system can

help provide clear goals for industry and management and help assess the effectiveness of

management arrangements. Triggers can be put in place to help ensure major undesirable

shifts in catches or other criteria are dealt with through appropriate management responses

and within appropriate timeframes.

A short information paper has been compiled by DPI&F to help guide consistent

development of performance measurement systems in a range of Queensland fisheries.

Objectives

Objectives are an important part of performance measurement in that there needs to be an

overall goal that management works towards.

Performance indicators

Indicators should be simple, meaningful and relatively easily monitored. It is ineffective to

identify indicators that require a costly new monitoring regime which cannot be supported by

the fishing industry.

Performance measures

26

Performance measures can be in the form of a target level, a limit, or a trigger for some form

of review or action.

Management responses

Management responses should be included in any fishery performance measurement

system. They should not be prescribed in a way as to restrict the capacity of fishery

managers and industry to deal with the issue. However, they should ensure that appropriate

management action is taken when a performance measure is triggered.

Draft Performance Measurement System

While participants didn’t have the opportunity to discuss specific performance measures at

the workshop, the risk assessment highlighted issues that need to be addressed and helped

inform the type of indicators and measures that were required. DPI&F staff consequently

drafted preliminary performance measures and sought feedback from participants. The draft

performance measures in the following table signify the results of this collaboration.

27

Dra

ft p

erf

orm

an

ce

me

as

ure

me

nt

sy

ste

m f

or

by

ca

tch

an

d b

yp

rod

uc

t

Ob

jec

tiv

eP

erf

orm

an

ce

Ind

ica

tor

Pe

rfo

rma

nc

e m

ea

su

re

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

res

po

ns

e

Byc

atc

h

A lo

w b

yca

tch

ra

te in

the

co

mm

erc

ial

fish

ery

is m

ain

tain

ed

.

Byca

tch

da

ta c

olle

cte

d

by in

de

pe

nd

en

t

ob

se

rve

rs o

n

co

mm

erc

ial fish

ing

bo

ats

Ob

se

rve

r in

form

atio

n f

rom

a q

uo

ta y

ea

r

sh

ow

s t

he

am

ou

nt

of

byca

tch

exce

ed

s

10

% o

f th

e to

tal ca

tch

take

n b

y

co

mm

erc

ial fish

ers

with

an

SM

fis

he

ry

sym

bo

l w

he

n t

arg

etin

g S

pa

nis

h

ma

cke

rel (b

y w

ho

le w

eig

ht)

.

Th

e n

ee

d f

or

wid

er

byca

tch

mo

nito

rin

g a

nd

im

pro

ve

d g

ea

r

se

lectivity t

o b

e r

evie

we

d b

y

the

DP

I&F

.

Pre

limin

ary

(i.e

. p

rio

r to

byp

rod

uct

sp

ecie

s b

ein

g in

clu

de

d in

a lo

gb

oo

k):

Th

e a

mo

un

t o

f fish

of spe

cie

s o

the

r

tha

n S

pa

nis

h m

acke

rel, n

ot

inclu

din

g

co

ral re

ef

finfish

, ta

ke

n o

n t

he

sa

me

da

y

tha

t S

pa

nis

h m

acke

rel is

ca

ug

ht

an

d

rep

ort

ed

by a

uth

ori

se

d f

ish

ers

is m

ore

tha

n 1

0%

of th

e a

mo

un

t o

f S

pa

nis

h

ma

cke

rel ta

ke

n b

y t

ho

se

lic

en

se

es in

tha

t q

uo

ta y

ea

r.

Byp

rod

uc

t M

ajo

r sh

ifts

in

ca

tch

of

byp

rod

uct

sp

ecie

s

are

avo

ide

d.

Lo

gb

oo

k in

form

atio

n o

n

ca

tch

of

lesse

r

ma

cke

rels

an

d o

the

r

pe

lag

ics (

not

inclu

din

g

an

y c

ora

l re

ef

fin

fish

sp

ecie

s).

Fo

llow

ing

in

tro

du

ctio

n o

f a

n e

xp

an

ded

log

bo

ok:

A s

ign

ific

an

t sh

ift

(i.e

., g

rea

ter

tha

n 2

5%

ch

an

ge

) in

th

e c

atc

h c

om

po

sitio

n o

f

byp

rod

uct

sp

ecie

s is d

ete

cte

d.

DP

I&F

to

re

vie

w t

he

ma

na

ge

me

nt

arr

an

ge

me

nts

in

pla

ce

to

pro

tect

byp

rod

uct

sp

ecie

s.

28

Or

Th

e r

ep

ort

ed

ca

tch

of

an

y o

ne

byp

rod

uct

sp

ecie

s incre

ase

s b

y m

ore

tha

n 2

5%

in

co

nse

cu

tive

ye

ars

.

Gre

ate

r th

an

tw

o in

tera

ctio

ns a

re

reco

rde

d p

er

ye

ar

in t

he

fis

he

ry.

Pro

tec

ted

sp

ec

ies

Extr

em

ely

lo

w le

ve

ls

of

inte

raction

s w

ith

pro

tecte

d s

pe

cie

s a

re

ma

inta

ine

d.

SO

CI

log

bo

ok

info

rma

tio

n o

n t

he

nu

mb

er

of

inte

ractio

ns.

Lo

gb

oo

k v

alid

atio

n a

ctivitie

s u

nd

ert

ake

n

by D

PI&

F d

em

on

str

ate

s t

ha

t

inte

ractio

ns w

ith

pro

tecte

d s

pe

cie

s a

re

no

t b

ein

g a

ccu

rate

ly r

eco

rde

d b

y

Sp

an

ish

ma

cke

rel fish

ers

DP

I&F

to

re

vie

w t

he

me

asu

res

in p

lace

to

min

imis

e

inte

ractio

ns w

ith

pro

tecte

d

sp

ecie

s.

29

Research and monitoring needs

Bycatch monitoring

The results of the risk assessment indicate that the level of risk is low enough that it

may not warrant a comprehensive bycatch monitoring program. It is proposed that

the level of bycatch in the commercial fishery be monitored through periodic observer

trips to establish that low bycatch levels are being maintained. A similar

methodology is used in NT, where up to six trips a year are undertaken to verify the

negligible take of bycatch.

In terms of measuring performance in the fishery, observer data would allow

monitoring of the level of bycatch in the commercial fishery to determine whether

bycatch exceeds more than 5% of the total catch taken when fishers with an SM

fishery symbol are targeting Spanish mackerel. A review of bycatch monitoring

would be undertaken if this level was exceeded.

The risk assessment identified that it was more important to monitor any changes in

the catch of byproduct species to detect shifts in targeting. An investigation into

expansion of the compulsory logbooks to include the main byproduct species will be

undertaken by DPI&F. This may include looking at the potential for development of a

separate “pelagic” logbook.

Size selectivity research

Participants at the workshop agreed that given the low risks associated with the

discard of undersize and large Spanish mackerel under current levels of fishing

effort, the need for more size selectivity was not warranted. The proposed

occasional observer trips will help to validate low catches of undersize and large fish.

The Scientific Advisory Committee (SAG) also considered the possibility of

undertaking research into size selectivity through better gear technology. It was

noted at the SAG that previous research suggested the size of bait was important in

determining the size of fish captured (Tobin and Maplestone, 2003), and that hook

size was less important. Based on the results of the risk assessment and research

previously undertaken, the SAG resolved further research into gear selectivity would

be of little value given that a reasonable amount of information suggests that there is

limited catch of undersize fish. The SAG noted that there was a small proportion of

Spanish mackerel taken which are immature even though they are above the

minimum legal size limit. However, it was agreed that in general the fishery is highly

selective for fish above the size at first maturity.

The LTMP continues to collect information from commercially caught Spanish

mackerel, to monitor the size composition of the commercial catch, and allow DPI&F

to ensure the proportion of pre-mature fish does not increase above 5% of the total

allowable catch. The minimum size at which female fish mature and spawn is 790

mm (fork length). The proportion of fish caught by the commercial sector during the

30

2004/2005 financial year that were between the legal minimum size of 750 mm (total

length) and the size at maturity (790 mm fork length ) was 3%.

31

Appendix 1 – List of workshop attendees

Amos Mapleston Researcher, Fishing and Fisheries, CRC Reef

Gavin Begg Project Leader, Fishing and Fisheries, CRC Reef

Col Lound Commercial fisher and processor (north) with 25 years

Spanish mackerel fishing experience

Peter Truman Commercial fisher and processor (south), who has

operated out of both Point Lookout and Agnus Waters.

Jeff Mears Recreational fisher (south), who works closely with the

Long Term Monitoring Program frames project.

Anna Battese Australian Government Department of the Environment

and Heritage

Darren Rose Fisheries Biologist, Long Term Monitoring Program,

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries

Kath Kelly Fisheries Management Officer, Department of Primary

Industries and Fisheries

Stephanie Slade Senior Fisheries Management Officer, Department of

Primary Industries and Fisheries

Claire Andersen Fisheries Resource Officer and workshop facilitator,

Assessment and Monitoring Unit, Department of

Primary Industries and Fisheries

Apologies:

Andrew Tobin Commercial fisher (north) and researcher previously

with CRC Reef

Troy Jones Charter operator (north)

32

Appendix 2 – Consequence and likelihood tables

Table 1: Consequence table for target species.

Level Ecological sustainability of target species

Negligible (0) Insignificant impacts to populations. Not measurable against

background variability for this population.

Minor (1) Detectable, but minimal impact on population size and none on

dynamics (eg recruitment).

Moderate (2) Full exploitation rate, but long-term recruitment/dynamics not

adversely impacted.

Severe (3) Affecting recruitment levels of stocks/or their capacity to

increase.

Major (4) Will cause local extinctions, if continued in longer term (i.e.

probably requiring listing of species in an appropriate category of

the endangered species list (eg IUCN category).

Catastrophic (5) Local extinctions are imminent/immediate

Table 2: Consequence table for byproduct and bycatch species

Ecological sustainability of Byproduct and bycatch species Level

Overlap in

distribution of the

fishery and the

species of interest

Contribution to

overall Qld catch of

the species of

interest5

Vulnerability of the

species (ie due to

life history

characteristics)

Negligible (0) Area where fishing

occurs is negligible

compared to where

the relevant stock of

the species resides (<

1%) (ie minimal

overlap between the

species).

Take in this fishery is

negligible (< 10%),

compared to total take

by all fisheries and

these species are

covered explicitly

elsewhere.

The species does not

have vulnerable life

history traits.

Minor (1)

Area of capture by

this fishery is small,

compared to known

area of distribution (<

20%).

Take in this fishery is

small (< 25%),

compared to total take

by all fisheries and

these species are

covered explicitly

elsewhere.

The species has some vulnerable life history traits, such as aggregating to spawn or poor survival following release.

Moderate (2) Relative area of, or

susceptibility to

capture is suspected

to be less than 50%.

Levels of take in this

fishery compared to

the total take across

all fisheries is

moderate (>25%).

The species is

moderately

vulnerable to

overexploition due to

its life history

5 Only used when assessing byproduct, not bycatch.

33

characteristics OR

No information is

available on the

species vulnerability

Severe (3) No information is

available on the

relative areas of

distribution OR the

overlap in

distributions is

thought to be high

(>50%)

Relative levels of

capture/susceptibility

suspected/known to

be greater than 50%

and species should

be examined

explicitly.

The species is highly

vulnerable to

overexploitation or

impacts of fishing as

a result of its life

history traits.

Major (4) N/A Once a

consequence reaches

this point it should be

examined using Table

1.

N/A See Table 1 N/A See Table 1

Catastrophic (5) N/A See Table 1 N/A See Table 1 N/A See Table 1

Table 3: Consequence table for protected species

Level Ecological (Protected species)

Negligible (0) Almost none are impacted

Minor (1) Some are impacted but there is no impact on stock

Moderate (2) Levels of impact are at the maximum acceptable level

Severe (3) Same as target species

Major (4) Same as target species

Catastrophic (5) Same as target species

Table 4: Likelihood table

Level Descriptor

Likely (6) Is expected to occur often

Occasional (5) Is expected to occur moderately

Unlikely (4) Is expected to occur only infrequently

Possible (3) Unlikely, but has been known to occur elsewhere

Rare (2) Happens only very rarely

Remote (1) Never heard of, but not impossible

34

Table 5: Risk ratings matrix

Consequence

Negligible Minor Moderate Severe Major Catastrophic

Likelihood 0 1 2 3 4 5

Remote 1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Rare 2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Unlikely 3 0 3 6 9 12 15

Possible 4 0 4 8 12 16 20

Occasional 5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Likely 6 0 6 12 18 24 30

Table 6: Risk rankings

RISK Reporting Management Response

Negligible Short Justification Only Nil

LowFull Justification needed None Specific

Moderate

Full Performance Report Continue Current Management

Arrangements

High

Full Performance Report Changes to management required

ExtremeFull Performance Report

Substantial additional management

needed urgently

35

Appendix 3 – Risk ratings and rankings Species Consequence Likelihood Risk value Risk

ranking

Retained species

shark mackerel (north) 1 4 4 Low

shark mackerel (south) 0.6 4 2.4 Low

cobia 0.6 4 2.4 Low

trevally 0.3 4 1.2 Low

barracuda 0.3 3 0.9 Low

mackerel tuna (south) 0.6 4 2.4 Low

spotted mackerel (north) 0.6 3 1.8 Low

spotted mackerel (south) 0.6 4 2.4 Low

school mackerel 0.6 4 2.4 Low

snapper 1 3 3 Low

Coral reef finfish species in

general 1 3 3 Low

Non retained species

Not listed species

undersize Spanish mackerel 1 4 4 Low

mackerel tuna (north) 1 4 4 Low

trevally 0.5 5 2.5 Low

barracuda 0.5 3 1.5 Low

northern blue fin tuna 1 4 4 Low

yellowfin tuna 1 4 4 Low

marlin (commercial) 1.5 3 4.5 Low

marlin (recreational) 1.5 4 6 Low

wahoo 1 3 3 Low

undersize school mackerel

(commercial) 1 3 3 Low

undersize school mackerel

(recreational) 1 4 4 Low

undersize spotted mackerel

(commercial) 1 3 3 Low

undersize spotted mackerel

(recreational) 1 4 4 Low

Coral reef finfish species

taken by operators with no

RQ symbol 1.5 4 6 Low

undersize or oversize coral

reef finfish species 1.5 4 6 Low

sharks (not including grey

nurse) 2 4 8 Moderate

Australian leaping bonito 1 3 3 Low

remora 1 3 3 Low

Listed species

seabirds - boobies and 1 3 3 Low

36

Species Consequence Likelihood Risk value Risk

ranking

gannets

dolphins 1 3 3 Low

pilot whale 1 2 2 Low

chinaman fish61 3 3 Low

Interaction but no direct capture

whales 1.5 3 4.5 Low

sharks (not including grey

nurse) 1.5 5 7.5 Low

6 It is acknowledged that chinaman fish is not a listed species under the Environment

Protection and Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999, but was included in this section because it is a no-take fish under the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994.

37

Appendix 4 – information sourced from compulsory commercial logbooks

Compulsory daily logbooks maintained by DPI&F can provide information on the

product caught on the same day as Spanish mackerel, and may help quantify the

extent of byproduct in the fishery. It is difficult to identify all the byproduct caught in

the ECSMF because of overlap with other line fisheries. However, as a broad rule,

byproduct was estimated by calculating the catch of other species on the east coast

by line method, recorded on the same day that operators reported catching Spanish

mackerel.

Compulsory logbook data indicates that on more than 30% of the days when Spanish

mackerel was caught, no other fish were taken (Figure 1). Of the remaining days,

only a small number of other species were usually caught (ie less than 5). On a

small number of days (<5%), up to twelve other species were caught.

Figure 1

Table 1 shows the catch of species other than Spanish mackerel, taken on the same

day as Spanish mackerel was caught (i.e. byproduct) in 2004. It also provides an

indication of the catch of the species in the East Coast Spanish Mackerel Fishery,

compared to the total Queensland catch of these byproduct species.

The data suggests that there is significant overlap between a number of line

fisheries, namely the reef line fishery and the rocky reef fishery. It is assumed that a

large proportion of coral reef finfish and rocky reef finfish caught on the same day as

Spanish mackerel are taken under the relevant fishery symbol (i.e. RQ and L1

respectively), not as byproduct in the East Coast Spanish Mackerel Fishery.

Average percentage of SM days where catch of other species was

recorded (2000-2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Number of species caught (1 = only spanish mackerel)

Avera

ge %

of

days S

M f

ish

ing

38

Table

1:

Bypro

duct

catc

h c

hara

cte

ristics

To

tal a

nn

ua

l c

atc

h (

t) o

f

sp

ec

ies

ca

ug

ht

on

th

e

sam

e d

ay a

s S

pan

ish

ma

ck

ere

l w

as

ca

ug

ht

by

lin

e o

n t

he E

ast

Co

ast

in

20

04

To

tal Q

ld c

atc

h (

t) o

f th

e

sp

ecie

s, b

y a

ll m

eth

od

s

an

d r

eg

ion

s in

20

04

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f th

e t

ota

l

Qu

ee

ns

lan

d c

atc

h o

f th

e

sp

ec

ies

th

at

is t

ak

en

as

byp

rod

uc

t in

th

e E

as

t

Co

ast

Sp

an

ish

Ma

cke

rel

fis

he

ry

Catc

h o

f b

yp

rod

uct

sp

ec

ies

as

a p

erc

en

tag

e

of

the S

pan

ish

mackere

l

ca

tch

fo

r 2

00

4

Sh

ark

- C

at

0.0

07

0.0

0

100.0

%

0.0

%

Tre

va

lly -

Blu

dg

er

0.0

0

0.0

0

10

0.0

%

0.0

%

Tu

na -

Yello

wfi

n

0.5

4

0.7

1

76.3

%

0.2

%

Wa

ho

o

0.9

6

1.4

9

64

.3%

0.3

%

Tu

na

- D

og

too

th

0.0

4

0.0

6

60

.4%

0

.0%

Scad -

Yello

wta

il 0.4

2

0.8

6

49.0

%

0.1

%

Ma

ckere

l -

unsp

ecifie

d

0.9

5

2.6

3

36

.1%

0

.3%

Tu

na -

Lo

ng

tail

0.9

9

3.0

9

32.1

%

0.3

%

Mackere

l -

Sh

ark

13.6

8

45.3

4

30.2

%

4.4

%

Mackere

l -

Slim

y

1.0

4

3.6

0

28.9

%

0.3

%

Jew

- M

ullo

wa

y

0.2

8

1.0

1

27

.8%

0

.1%

Kin

gfish -

Yello

wta

il 0.6

2

2.9

2

21.2

%

0.2

%

Ray -

Blu

e s

potted

0.0

1

0.0

3

19.4

%

0.0

%

Ma

ck

ere

l -

Sp

ott

ed

1

8.6

4

11

0.9

9

16

.8%

5.9

%

Co

d -

Estu

ary

0

.27

1

.75

1

5.4

%

0.1

%

Kin

gfi

sh

- B

lac

k

2.5

9

17

.80

1

4.5

%

0.8

%

Tre

va

lly -

Un

sp

ec

ifie

d

18

.13

1

27

.11

1

4.3

%

5.8

%

Tre

vall

y -

Go

ld S

po

t 0.0

8

0.5

6

13.4

%

0.0

%

Tu

na -

Mackere

l 0.8

9

8.5

0

10.5

%

0.3

%

Tre

vall

y -

gia

nt

0.0

9

0.9

3

9.1

%

0.0

%

Kin

gfish

- U

nsp

ecifie

d

0.2

3

2.5

7

8.7

%

0.1

%

Tu

na

- U

nsp

ecifie

d

1.1

1

14

.15

7

.9%

0

.4%

Sn

ap

pe

r 1

1.6

1

15

2.8

4

7.6

%

3.7

%

Thre

adfin -

unspecifie

d

0.1

9

2.7

9

6.7

%

0.1

%

Fis

h -

Unsp

ecifie

d

8.3

0

13

8.0

9

6.0

%

2.6

%

7 N

ote

that w

here

a c

atc

h is e

qual to

0.0

0 tonnes, it m

eans less than 1

0 k

g o

f th

e s

pecie

s is c

aught.

39

To

tal a

nn

ua

l c

atc

h (

t) o

f

sp

ec

ies

ca

ug

ht

on

th

e

sam

e d

ay a

s S

pan

ish

ma

ck

ere

l w

as

ca

ug

ht

by

lin

e o

n t

he E

ast

Co

ast

in

20

04

To

tal Q

ld c

atc

h (

t) o

f th

e

sp

ecie

s, b

y a

ll m

eth

od

s

an

d r

eg

ion

s in

20

04

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f th

e t

ota

l

Qu

ee

ns

lan

d c

atc

h o

f th

e

sp

ec

ies

th

at

is t

ak

en

as

byp

rod

uc

t in

th

e E

as

t

Co

ast

Sp

an

ish

Ma

cke

rel

fis

he

ry

Catc

h o

f b

yp

rod

uct

sp

ec

ies

as

a p

erc

en

tag

e

of

the S

pan

ish

mackere

l

ca

tch

fo

r 2

00

4

Am

berjack

0.4

6

9.0

4

5.1

%

0.1

%

Dolp

hin

Fis

h

0.4

7

10.4

3

4.5

%

0.1

%

Jew

- S

ilve

r 0

.57

1

3.3

0

4.3

%

0.2

%

Perc

h -

Pearl

2.2

0

54.2

5

4.1

%

0.7

%

Ra

inb

ow

Ru

nn

er

0.0

1

0.2

1

3.9

%

0.0

%

Ma

ck

ere

l -

Sc

ho

ol

5.2

9

13

9.1

1

3.8

%

1.7

%

Jew

- T

era

glin

0

.69

1

8.8

1

3.7

%

0.2

%

Bo

nit

o -

un

sp

ec

ifie

d

0.8

7

23

.91

3

.6%

0.3

%

Sea P

erc

h -

Mangro

ve J

ack

0.2

5

8.1

4

3.1

%

0.1

%

Em

pe

ror

- gra

ssy

0.0

1

0.3

4

2.0

%

0.0

%

Sca

d -

Unsp

ecifie

d

0.3

7

30

.42

1

.2%

0

.1%

Sh

ark

- U

nspe

cifie

d

6.1

9

51

3.2

4

1.2

%

2.0

%

Qu

een

fish

- U

nsp

ecifie

d

0.8

3

17

3.8

5

0.5

%

0.3

%

Ba

rra

cu

da

0

.04

1

1.0

3

0.4

%

0.0

%

Tre

va

lly -

go

lde

n

0.0

1

4.0

1

0.3

%

0.0

%

Mackere

l -

Gre

y

1.4

3

709.7

5

0.2

%

0.5

%

Jew

- U

nspe

cifie

d

0.0

3

30

.53

0

.1%

0

.0%

Ta

ilor

0.1

1

14

0.9

6

0.1

%

0.0

%

Sh

ark

- H

am

me

rhe

ad

0

.04

1

61

.13

0

.0%

0

.0%

Garf

ish -

Unspecifie

d

0.0

5

262.5

2

0.0

%

0.0

%

Sh

ark

- w

ha

ler

un

sp

ecifie

d

0.0

9

60

3.2

2

0.0

%

0.0

%

Shark

- B

lack tip

reef

0.0

4

305.9

8

0.0

%

0.0

%

Fla

the

ad

- U

nsp

ecifie

d

0.0

0

97

.76

0

.0%

0

.0%

Gru

nte

r -

un

specifie

d

0.0

0

86.8

8

0.0

%

0.0

%

40

Ap

pen

dix

5 –

Eco

log

ical an

d o

ther

facto

rs r

ela

tin

g t

o e

ach

sp

ecie

s id

en

tifi

ed

8

Re

tain

ed

sp

ec

ies

Cri

teri

aS

ha

rk

ma

ck

ere

l

Co

bia

Tre

va

lly

sp

p

Ba

rra

cu

da

Ma

ck

ere

l

tun

a

Sp

ott

ed

ma

ck

ere

l

Sc

ho

ol

ma

ck

ere

l

Sn

ap

pe

rC

ora

l re

ef

fin

fis

h

ge

ne

rall

y

Dis

trib

utio

n

We

ste

rn

Pa

cific

.

No

rth

ern

co

asts

of

Au

str

alia

–

Qld

, W

A a

nd

no

rth

ern

NS

W.

Wo

rld

wid

e

in t

rop

ica

l

an

d

su

btr

op

ica

l

wa

ters

.

More

co

mm

on

in

so

uth

ern

ree

fs o

f Q

ld

Ind

o-w

est

pa

cific

Ind

o-p

acific

.

Fo

un

d a

lon

g

the

en

tire

Qld

co

astlin

e

Ind

o-w

est

Pa

cific

.

We

ste

rn

Pa

cific

.

Ab

roh

los

Isla

nd

s,

WA

to C

off

s

Ha

rbo

ur,

NS

W,

acro

ss t

he

No

rth

of

Au

str

alia

.

We

ste

rn

Pa

cific

.

Sh

ark

Ba

y,

WA

no

rth

to

PN

G a

nd

so

uth

to

Sydney.

Dis

trib

ute

d

wid

ely

aro

un

d t

he

Ind

o

Pa

cific

. In

Au

str

alia

fro

m t

he

Sw

ain

s

so

uth

to

Ta

sm

an

ia

an

d W

est

to

ce

ntr

al W

A.

Co

sm

op

olit

an

dis

trib

utio

n in

tro

pic

al

wa

ters

.

Ca

tch

co

mp

are

d t

o

oth

er

fish

eri

es

Se

e A

pp

en

dix

4

Sp

ecie

s

resili

ence

Me

diu

m –

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e

1.4

– 4

.4 y

rs

Me

diu

m –

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e 1

.4 –

4.4

yrs

Hig

h,

min

imu

m

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e le

ss

Me

diu

m –

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e

1.4

– 4

.4 y

rs

Hig

h,

min

imu

m

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e le

ss

Me

diu

m –

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e 1

.4 –

4.4

yrs

Me

diu

m –

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e 1

.4 –

4.4

yrs

Assu

me

d t

o

be

lo

w

be

ca

use

of

slo

w

gro

wth

.

Me

diu

m –

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e

1.4

– 4

.4 y

rs

8 I

nfo

rma

tio

n s

ou

rce

d f

rom

Ka

loila

et

al (1

99

3),

Fro

se

an

d P

au

ly (

20

05

), B

an

nis

ter

et a

l (1

99

6),

Gra

nt

(19

85

) a

nd

Gra

nt

(19

97

)

41

Cri

teri

aS

ha

rk

ma

ck

ere

l

Co

bia

Tre

va

lly

sp

p

Ba

rra

cu

da

Ma

ck

ere

l

tun

a

Sp

ott

ed

ma

ck

ere

l

Sc

ho

ol

ma

ck

ere

l

Sn

ap

pe

rC

ora

l re

ef

fin

fis

h

ge

ne

rall

y

tha

n 1

5

mo

nth

s

tha

n 1

5

mo

nth

s

Ma

turi

ty

Aro

un

d 2

ye

ars

42

cm

V

ari

es

be

twe

en

sp

ecie

s

Aro

un

d 2

-4

ye

ars

Aro

un

d 3

ye

ars

1-3

ye

ars

(48

-58

cm

de

pe

nd

ing

on

se

x)

1-3

ye

ars

(40

-50

cm

de

pe

nd

ing

on

se

x)

22

-30

cm

(2

-

5 y

ea

rs)

Va

rie

s

Ma

x a

ge

1

0-1

4 y

ea

rs

un

kn

ow

n

un

kn

ow

n

10

ye

ars

u

nkn

ow

n

10

-14

ye

ars

1

0-1

4ye

ars

U

p t

o 3

5

ye

ars

Va

rie

s

Ca

tch

ab

ility

D

en

se

co

nce

ntr

ation

s

aro

un

d

ind

ivid

ua

l cays

an

d r

ee

fs.

May form

de

nse

sh

oa

ls o

ve

r

ree

fs d

uri

ng

su

mm

ert

ime

(Gra

nts

gu

ide

)

Ju

ve

nile

s

may form

sm

all

sch

oo

ls, b

ut

old

er

ind

ivid

ua

ls

ten

d t

o b

e

so

lita

ry.

Ca

n

so

me

tim

es

be

fo

un

d in

sm

all

ag

gre

ga

tio

ns,

bu

t u

su

ally

so

lita

ry.

Hig

hly

mig

rato

ry.

Vo

racio

us

fee

de

rs.

Oft

en

a

nu

isa

nce

fish

wh

en

targ

etin

g

Sp

an

ish

ma

cke

rel.

Fo

rm la

rge

sch

oo

ls

wh

ich

mo

ve

clo

se

insh

ore

alo

ng

th

e

Qld

ea

st

co

ast

Fo

rm la

rge

sch

oo

ls

wh

ich

mo

ve

clo

se

insh

ore

alo

ng

th

e

Qld

du

rin

g

mid

win

ter

an

d e

arl

y

sp

rin

g.

So

me

tim

es

form

sch

oo

ls to

sp

aw

n.

Exte

nd

ed

sp

aw

nin

g

pe

rio

d

(th

rou

gh

ou

t

win

ter)

A n

um

be

r o

f

sp

ecie

s

ag

gre

ga

te t

o

sp

aw

n.

No

n r

eta

ine

d s

pe

cie

s9

No

n-l

iste

d s

pecie

s

9 N

ote

that unders

ize s

chool and s

potted m

ackere

l and c

ora

l re

ef

finfish s

pecie

s m

ake u

p p

art

of th

e n

on-r

eta

ined s

pecie

s. B

iolo

gic

al in

form

ation o

n these

sp

ecie

s w

as p

rovid

ed

in

th

e r

eta

ined

spe

cie

s ta

ble

.

42

Cri

teri

aU

nd

ers

ize

SM

No

rth

ern

blu

efi

n t

un

a

Ye

llo

wfi

n

tun

a

Ma

rlin

Le

ap

ing

bo

nit

o

Wa

ho

oR

em

ora

Sh

ark

s (

no

t

inc

lud

ing

GN

S)

Dis

trib

utio

n

Ind

o-W

est

Pa

cific

. S

ou

th

Afr

ica

, S

E

Asia

, C

hin

a,

Au

str

alia

, F

iji.

Ind

o-w

est

Pa

cific

.

Acro

ss

no

rth

ern

Au

str

alia

fro

m

WA

to

NS

W

Inh

ab

it a

ll

oce

an

s.

On

the

ea

st

co

ast

ran

ge

fro

m

To

rre

s S

tra

it

to T

asm

an

ia

Le

ng

th o

f

bo

th t

he

we

st

an

d e

ast

co

asts

of

Au

str

alia

.

No

rth

ern

thre

e q

ua

rte

rs

of

Au

str

alia

,

exte

nd

ing

to

PN

G

Atla

ntic,

Ind

ian

an

d

Pa

cific

oce

an

s

Co

sm

op

olit

an

in t

rop

ica

l an

d

su

btr

op

ica

l

wa

ters

Tro

pic

al a

nd

su

btr

op

ica

l

dis

trib

utio

n.

Va

rie

s w

ith

sp

ecie

s.

Sp

ecie

s r

esili

en

ce

M

ed

ium

–

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e

1.4

– 4

.4 y

rs

Me

diu

m,

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e

1.4

- 4

.4

ye

ars

Me

diu

m –

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e

1.4

– 4

.4 y

rs

Me

diu

m –

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e

1.4

– 4

.4 y

rs

Hig

h,

min

imu

m

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e

less t

ha

n 1

5

mo

nth

s

Me

diu

m –

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e

1.4

– 4

.4 y

rs

Un

kn

ow

n,

bu

t

tho

ug

ht

to b

e

rela

tive

ly h

igh

Ge

ne

rally

lo

w

du

e t

o a

ge

of

ma

turity

an

d

be

ari

ng

fe

w

live

yo

un

g

Ma

turity

7

9cm

6

0-7

0cm

FL

2

ye

ars

(aro

un

d

10

0cm

)

Un

ce

rta

in,

bu

t

ma

les

tho

ug

ht

to

ma

ture

ea

rlie

r

tha

n f

em

ale

s.

un

kn

ow

n

un

kn

ow

n

un

kn

ow

n

Va

rie

s

be

twe

en

2-4

ye

ars

(11

0cm

) fo

r

tro

pic

al

sh

ark

s,

to 1

3-

19

ye

ars

fo

r

wh

ale

rs

Ma

x a

ge

A

rou

nd

14

ye

ars

8

ye

ars

V

ari

es

be

twe

en

15

an

d 5

0 y

ea

rs

Ca

tch

ab

ility

F

ou

nd

in

sm

all

sch

oo

ls

May form

sch

oo

ls o

f

va

ryin

g s

ize

.

Lo

ca

lise

d

ag

gre

ga

tio

ns

Tu

na

sm

alle

r

tha

n 1

5kg

form

sch

oo

ls.

Ind

ivid

ua

ls

larg

er

tha

n

Ag

gre

ga

te t

o

sp

aw

n in

the

co

ral se

a

from

Se

pte

mb

er

–

Fo

rms

sch

oo

ls o

f

se

ve

ral

hu

nd

red

ind

ivid

ua

ls

Fre

qu

en

tly

so

lita

ry o

r

so

me

tim

es

form

sm

all

loo

se

May b

e

ca

ug

ht

wh

ile

att

ach

ed

to

oth

er

sp

ecie

s

Som

e

sp

ecie

s fo

rm

sch

oo

ls.

43

Cri

teri

aU

nd

ers

ize

SM

No

rth

ern

blu

efi

n t

un

a

Ye

llo

wfi

n

tun

a

Ma

rlin

Le

ap

ing

bo

nit

o

Wa

ho

oR

em

ora

Sh

ark

s (

no

t

inc

lud

ing

GN

S)

in M

ore

ton

Ba

y in

Ap

ril.

15

kg

te

nd

to

be

so

lita

ry.

De

ce

mb

er

ag

gre

ga

tio

ns

Po

st

rele

ase

su

rviv

al

Th

ou

gh

t to

ha

ve

po

or

rele

ase

su

rviv

al, b

ut

de

pe

nd

s o

n

the

le

ng

th o

f

tim

e t

o la

nd

.

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Su

rviv

al

tho

ug

ht

to b

e

fair

ly h

igh

ba

se

d o

n

tag

gin

g

stu

die

s

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Un

kn

ow

n

Lis

ted

sp

ecie

s10

Cri

teri

aS

ea

bir

ds

(b

oo

bie

s a

nd

ga

nn

ets

)

Co

mm

on

do

lph

inP

ilo

t w

ha

le

Ch

ina

ma

n f

ish

Dis

trib

utio

n

Ga

nn

ets

an

d b

oo

bie

s

ha

ve

a w

ide

dis

trib

ution

thro

ug

ho

ut

Au

str

alia

and

inte

rna

tio

na

lly.

Ga

nn

ets

ten

d t

o b

e m

ore

restr

icte

d t

o s

ou

the

rn

are

as o

f A

ustr

alia

.

Wid

e d

istr

ibu

tio

n

inte

rna

tio

na

lly a

nd

fo

un

d

thro

ug

ho

ut

insh

ore

an

d

off

sh

ore

Qld

wa

ters

.

Wid

ely

dis

trib

ute

d

thro

ug

ho

ut

eq

ua

tori

al

reg

ion

s.

We

ste

rn P

acific

. F

air

ly

ple

ntifu

l in

no

rth

ern

GB

R

(Gra

nts

gu

ide

).

Ca

tch

co

mp

are

d t

o o

ther

fish

eri

es

Th

ou

gh

t to

be

lo

w

co

mp

are

d t

o o

the

r

Lik

ely

to

be

re

lative

ly lo

w

in a

ll fish

eri

es,

bu

t

Lik

ely

to

be

re

lative

ly lo

w

in a

ll fish

eri

es,

bu

t

Un

kn

ow

n

10 It is

acknow

ledged that chin

am

an fis

h is n

ot a lis

ted s

pecie

s u

nder

the E

nviro

nm

en

t P

rote

ction

an

d B

iod

ivers

ity a

nd

Co

nse

rva

tion

Act 1

99

9, but w

as

inclu

ded in this

section b

ecause it is

a r

egula

ted fis

h u

nder

the Q

ueensla

nd F

ishe

ries A

ct 1

994

.

44

fish

eri

es (

eg lo

ng

lin

ing

in a

rea

s f

urt

he

r so

uth

)

po

ssib

ly h

igh

er

in

fish

eri

es th

at

use

me

sh

ne

ts.

po

ssib

ly h

igh

er

in

fish

eri

es th

at

use

me

sh

ne

ts.

Sp

ecie

s r

esili

en

ce

A

ssu

me

d t

o b

e lo

w-

me

diu

m d

ue

to

th

e s

ma

ll

nu

mb

er

of

off

sp

rin

g

pro

du

ce

d.

Assu

me

d t

o b

e lo

w d

ue

to lo

w f

ecu

nd

ity,

ag

e o

f

ma

turi

ty a

nd

giv

ing

bir

th

to liv

e y

ou

ng

.

Assu

me

d t

o b

e lo

w d

ue

to lo

w f

ecu

nd

ity,

ag

e o

f

ma

turi

ty a

nd

giv

ing

bir

th

to liv

e y

ou

ng

.

Me

diu

m –

po

pu

latio

n

do

ub

ling

tim

e 1

.4 –

4.4

yrs

Ma

turi

ty

6-7

ye

ars

old

9

-11

ye

ars

A

pp

roxim

ate

ly 1

7 y

ea

rs

Ma

x a

ge

S

om

e s

ea

bird

sp

ecie

s

live

up

to

50

or

60

ye

ars

Ap

pro

xim

ate

ly 3

0 y

ea

rs

Be

twe

en

46

an

d 6

3

ye

ars

Ca

tch

ab

ility

U

su

ally

so

lita

ry w

he

n

fee

din

g.

Are

kn

ow

n t

o t

rave

l a

nd

fee

d in

po

ds

Occu

r in

sm

all

gro

up

s o

f

20

– 3

0 o

r in

la

rge

he

rds

of

se

ve

ral h

un

dre

d.

Occu

rs s

ing

ly

Po

st

rele

ase s

urv

iva

l

Th

ou

gh

t to

be

re

lative

ly

hig

h d

ep

en

din

g o

n

ha

nd

ling

and

re

lea

se

tim

e.

Un

kn

ow

n b

ut

hig

hly

de

pe

nd

en

t on

typ

e o

f

ge

ar

an

d h

an

dlin

g

Un

kn

ow

n b

ut

hig

hly

de

pe

nd

en

t on

typ

e o

f

ge

ar

an

d h

an

dlin

g

Un

kn

ow

n

45

Appendix 6 – Size composition of the commercial and recreational Spanish mackerel catch compiled through the DPI&F Long Term Monitoring Program.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

600: 649

650: 699

700: 749

750: 799

800: 849

850: 899

900: 949

950: 999

1000:1

049

1050:1

099

1100:1

149

1150:1

199

1200:1

249

1250:1

299

1300:1

349

1350:1

399

1400:1

449

1450:1

499

1500:1

549

1550:1

599

1600:1

649

Size class (FL 50mm)

Perc

ent fr

equenc

Commercial

Recreational

1280mm~15kg1080mm ~10kg

n=2644

n=254

Maturity(790 mm)

46

Appendix 7 – Information provided by Lound’s Fresh Seafoods on the catch composition of Spanish mackerel commercial fishers

Summary information has been provided by a Townsville-based wholesaler on the retained

catch of several Spanish mackerel commercial fishers, operating out of Townsville. The

figures help to demonstrate the amount of catch of species other than Spanish mackerel.

Species retained by Spanish mackerel commercial fisherman, as a proportion of the total catch taken when targeting Spanish mackerel

Date

CobiaSharkmackerel

Shark Trevally

21/09/2005 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

28/09/2005 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

2/10/2005 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

4/10/2005 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

11/10/2005 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%

17/10/2005 1.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

19/10/2005 1.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.7%

26/10/2005 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%

29/10/2005 1.6% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0%

3/11/2005 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Catch of non-target species (kg) by Spanish mackerel commercial fishers, compared to the Spanish mackerel catch (kg) taken on the

same day Date

Spanishmackerel(kg)

Cobia (kg) Sharkmackerel(kg)

Shark (kg) Trevally (kg)

21/09/2005 445 0 0 0 0

28/09/2005 111 0 0 0 0

2/10/2005 640 0 0 0 0

4/10/2005 1274 21 0 0 0

11/10/2005 2286 18 0 0 14

17/10/2005 1402 26 4 0 0

19/10/2005 944 10 9 0 7

26/10/2005 1566 3 0 6 0

29/10/2005 406 7 18 0 0

3/11/2005 983 28 0 0 0

47

Other background information used for the assessment

Other jurisdictions

Western Australia

WA Fisheries stated in its ecological assessment of the Spanish mackerel fishery that

some finfish species including queenfish, pike, tuna and shark are occasionally caught and

discarded because they are unmarketable or of relatively low value. Species also caught

and discard include tuna, billfish, sharks and demersal reef fish in the Pilbara and

Kimberley sectors and are discarded because fishers are not licensed to retain them. WA

assessed the impacts of the take of bycatch in the fishery as negligible risk.

DEH did not recommend that WA Fisheries monitor bycatch or improve on the level of

bycatch information in this fishery. DEH did however recommend that WA implement a

system to improve the identification and recording of elasmobranch species that are taken

as byproduct. Bycatch information was provided by consulting the Spanish mackerel

fishers and from monitoring programs in WA with similar fishing methods.

Northern Territory

NT stated in its ecological assessment that bycatch in the Spanish mackerel fishery is

negligible, using a similar argument as WA Fisheries. Observers and fishery dependent

research demonstrated a negligible take of bycatch.

DEH recommended to NT fisheries that it: Monitor the species composition of bycatch and

byproduct with a view to undertaking a more rigorous risk analysis, if there is a significant

increase in the catch of individual species.

The 2003 Spanish Mackerel fishery status report stated that during six observer trips, in

which a total of 1586 SM were taken, bycatch consisted of 24 fish in total – 13 giant

trevally, 6 barracuda, 1 coral trout and 4 tuna.

Information (including some anecdotal) available from Queensland

Amos Mapleston advised that some observer trips were done in SE QLD (8-10

days). Whilst bycatch and discards weren’t recorded he suggested that it’s very

limited. Bycatch was mainly composed of shark mackerel and long-tail tuna.

Discussion with Geoff McPherson indicated that during independent monitoring

surveys, limited bycatch was taken. He suggested that Spanish mackerel

comprises one of the cleanest fisheries in terms of bycatch. He noted that the

species discarded were generally barracuda and trevally. In regard to protected

species he noted 1 interaction with a turtle and 1 with a seabird in 35 years of

monitoring Spanish mackerel.

48

Mapleston and Tobin (2003) identified that it is a common anecdote that

commercial fishers will actively move away from schools of small though legal sized

mackerel due to poor economic returns per captured fish.

JCU (Gavin Begg) has advised in a letter to ReefMAC that the bycatch of seabirds

during reef research trips was negligible.

Byproduct information is available through commercial logbooks (most bycatch in

the fishery is saleable product and is retained)

A number of observer trips have been done in the reef line fishery. Spanish

mackerel made up 0.5% of the catch (5 SM were caught in 20 observer days).

49

References

Bannister, J. L. Kemper, C. M. Warneke, R. M. 1996. The action plan for Australian

Cetaceans, Environment Australia

Department of Fisheries Western Australia, 2004. Final Application to the Australian

Government Department of Environment and Heritage on the WA Mackerel Fishery

Against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries for

Consideration Under Part 13A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999

Fletcher, W.J. Chesson, J. Fisher, M. Sainsbury, K.J. Hundloe, T. Smith, A.D.M.

Whitworth, B. 2002. National ESD reporting framework for Australian fisheries: the 'how to'

guide for wild capture fisheries. FRDC Project 2000/145. Fisheries Research and

Development Corporation, Canberra.

Froese, R. and Pauly D. Editors. 2005. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.

www.fishbase.org. version (10/2005).

Grady, A. 2002. Assessing The Ecological Sustainability Of The Northern Territory

Spanish Mackerel Fishery - A report prepared for Environment Australia as required for

assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Northern Territory, Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development

Kaloila, P. Williams, M. Stewart, P. Reichelt, R. McNee, A. Grieve, C. 1993. Australian

Fisheries Resources, Bureau of Resource Sciences and the Fisheries Research

Development Corporation.

Mcleay, L. Jones, K. and Ward, T. 2002. National strategy for the survival of line-caught

fish – a review of research and fishery information. FRDC Project 2001/101. Fisheries

research and development corporation and SARDI.

Roelofs, A., Ryan, S, Clarke, K, Doohan, Trippett, F, and Sly, S. 2003. Ecological

assessment of the Gulf of Carpentaria Line Fishery. August 2003. Queensland

Government Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.

Tobin, A and Mapleston, A. 2003. Exploitation dynamics and biological characteristics of

the Queensland East Coast Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) fishery.

FRDC Report No 2001/109. CRC Reef Research Centre. Townsville.

Waterbird Rescue Queensland and DPI&F, 2005, Looking after protected species in

Queensland - seabird care and handling for commercial and recreational fishers - DVD